automatic magnetic mooring - unece...vessel to be considered “mooring” as in adn 7.2.5.3? or is...
Post on 13-Mar-2020
0 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Automatic Magnetic Mooring - Wouter van Reenen MSc - Mampaey Offshore Industries
Overview docklock presentation:
Optimizing the process of mooring
Concept
Introduction
Design Criteria
Physical Design
• Introduction • Mampaey Offshore Industries • Bunker operations
• Project Synergy • Bunker process
• Prototype Development • Project approach • Testing Waalhaven inland port
CONCEPT INTRODUCTION
Conception of the idea of automatic mooring
3
Intr
od
uct
ion
Mampaey Offshore Industries
“Specialized in the design, engineering, manufacturing & commissioning of integrated towing, mooring and berthing
systems”
Since 1904
Core Business
Bunker operations overview
Intr
od
uct
ion
Pro
ject
Syn
erg
y
Bunker process Safety & Health : mitigating risks Safety improvement by using docklock system
No need for shore line personel, nor ship crew line handling
No injury risks, less exposure time Live monitoring of mooring operation and
external influences and conditions Faster response time to emergency situations No deterioration from UV, moisture and heat.
Pro
ject
Syn
erg
y
Bunker process Efficiency : reducing bunker delays Efficiency resulting from docklock system
Secures ship in <1 min. Decouples ship < 20 sec Faster turnaround, better ship
utilisation Shortening bunker time for client
vessel Deck crew free for cargo handling
operations
Pro
ject
Syn
erg
y
Bunker process Sustainability : durable operations Sustainability due to docklock system
Less physical strain and manual handling of crew
Reduced running hours engine/thrusters, so less emissions
Prototype 1.0
Partial prototypeing to analyse feasability of concept
Building for on-site live test Results of testing as a go / no-go decision factor Results led to building entire system for full
scale testing at Rotterdam inland port Waalhaven
Pro
toty
pe
Dev
elo
pm
en
t
Project approach
Prototype 1.0 Concept creation
Pro
toty
pe
Dev
elo
pm
en
t
• Worst Case Scenario’s • Passing vessel motions • Wind force • Water current force
• Simulations & Design • 3D-modelling • Final concept
• Industry Standards • Involved institutions • Industry regulations
DESIGN CRITERIA
Creating the operating framework
Worst Case Scenario’s
Criteria pilot project Worst case scenario’s vessel dynamics bunker process:
Passing vessel motions
Worst Case Scenario’s
Simulations & calculations Prof. Dr. Ing. J. Pinkster Technical University Delft
Passing vessel motions
Worst Case Scenario’s
Main results
Passing vessel motions
Forces & movements:
-Max sway: 35 kN -Max surge: 150 kN -Max yaw: 650 kN/m -Max heave (pads): 18 cm (Voorburg 55m)
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
0 200 400 600 800 1000
ForwardAft
Time (s)
Surg
e (m
)Surge motions at location of magnets (No mooring system)
Emma Maersk passing at 6 kn , 70 m
Worst Case Scenario’s
Wind forces
• Max worst case operating wind force: 7 Bft. • Max operating wind force in combination with worst case
passing vessel motions: 6 Bft. • MTS Vlissingen moored alongside MARCOR bulk carrier
[test-site prototype 1.0]
Criteria pilot project
Worst Case Scenario’s
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) analysis
Wind forces
Most critical angle:
45°
Worst Case Scenario’s
Most critical angle:
45°
Wind forces
Worst Case Scenario’s
Data
Water current forces
Operational Current Model Rotterdam Port Area
Simulations & Design
3D Modeling Concept development
Final Concept From Theory to test
Simulations & Design
Final Concept From Theory to test
Simulations & Design
Industry Standards
Research organizations
Involved institutions & companies
Business Modeling Technical Development
Passing Vessel Motions Wave Dynamics
Industry Standards
Companies
Involved institutions & companies
Bunker Operator Container Liner Dredging Expert
Oil & Gas Sourcing, Production & Supply
Industry Standards
Regulators & industry associations
Involved institutions & companies
Industry Standards
Standards
Industry Regulations
Explosion Proof
Electromagnetic Compatibility
Static Electricity
• Magnetic Modules • Technology magnetism • Force validation
• Framework • Special components
• Software & Hydraulics • System architecture
PHYSICAL DESIGN
Building the first live automated magnetic mooring system
Magnetic Modules
Magnetic flux Technology magnetism
Magnetic Modules
Semi-permanent quad pole Technology magnetism
OFF
ON
Perfect balance between North- en Southpole
All poles are active poles
High, controled flux
No radiation flux
No remaining magnetism in the hull
Max magnet force (approx 14 kg/ cm²)
No loss of magnetic force without electric power
Magnetic Modules
Fender control / Local pull-test Force validation
Construction Framework
Special components
Suspension frame
Mechanical synergy
Construction Framework
Special components
Suspension frame
Mechanical synergy
Software & Hydraulics
Philosophy (HAZOP, FMEA, SIL2)
System architecture Software program written with HAZOP study as underlying
guideline, followed by FMEA and SIL2 studies
Control program is fully automatic, with monitoring function
The system allows manual control
Hydraulic system created around control program (software)
Hydraulic components based on worst case forces needed in combination with the demanded functionality
Hydraulic system created to continuously hold vessel at predetermined safe distance, while allowing heave movements
Installation on ships and quayside • Safety • Efficiency • Sustainability
Automatic Magnetic Mooring
• Has the bunker procedure between a bunker vessel and a sea vessel to be considered “mooring” as in ADN 7.2.5.3? Or is this provision only relevant for a vessel mooring onto a regular pier?
• Are there other provisions of ADN relevant for the Dock Lock System other than ADN 7.2.5.3. or ADN 9.3.1.50-9.3.1.56 ?
?
Recognizing and understanding the unknown factors
Questions for ADN safety committee
top related